UP's M-10001, the Zephyrs and others, and articulated trucks

[Anonymous]

I have a question on some of the articulated passenger consists of the 1930's such as UP's M-10001, CB&Q's Zephyrs, IC's Green Diamond, and others. Were any of the articulated sections located on powered trucks?

I remember Overmod mentioning a while back that the concept of an articulated locomotive (e.g. a B-B-B or C-C-C) would not ideally work since the traction motors are located at the quarter points of the locomotive, and an articulated connection between two powerhouse housings would reduce tractive effort of the articulated truck (?).

[Paul Milenkovic]

Based on Diesel Spotters Guide, they only had traction motors in the lead truck -- they were all in a way supersized "doodle bugs" which had a powered lead truck and the rest trailing.

It is important to distinguish a freight locomotive where a lot of effort goes into max tractive effort with a lightweight train with powered and unpowered axles. I don't see any problem putting powered axles on an articulated truck.

In fact, the TGV does just that. While some high-speed trains use locomotives and unpowered trailers and others use all MU cars, the TGV has what looks like locomotives at the two ends but are really power cars, and they have powered axles at all of the articulated trucks the length of the train. Or you can think of the end cars as electric locomotives and the passenger cars as "road slugs" getting traction current from those locomotives.

[Anonymous]

The E5 that powered the Denver Zephyr is not articulated. The rest of the cars are.

Come out to IRM in Union, Il. next summer to see a beautiful site.

[M636C]

It depends on what you mean by streamliner, and what you mean by articulated!

I think the two units on M10004, which looked like two units coupled together, were articulated on to a pair of trucks on a span bolster, like a GE U50 or early UP Gas Turbine. So the two carbodies sat on a pivot on a span bolster which sat on two powered trucks.

If you look at photos of these units, they are very close together. There were three sets of these units, but to make things really complicated, one set was rebuilt as two non-articulated boosters, and these two were rebuilt with two normal trucks when they became booster units.

So UP ended up with two sets of three units, with the first two units articulated and the third one just coupled in the usual way. Photos of the three unit sets show a bigger gap between the second and third units than between the first and second, which were still articulated.

I bet you didn't want to know that!

But the articulated pair of trucks were definitely powered, just the same as the end trucks of the leading pair.

TGvs are definitely articulated, but none of the articulated trucks are powered. In the oldest TGVs. the two trucks on each power car, and the end truck on the outer car next to the power car were all powered, but none of these carried an articulation.

With the introduction of AC motors, later TGVs only use the two trucks on each power car for traction, the end passenger car trucks being idlers.

The Acela uses modified TGV power cars, and only the power car trucks are powered, even though the passenger cars are not articulated.

Peter

[M636C]

I just remembered that the old Santa Fe articulated motor baggage car whose number escapes me right now, (there was only one!) was powered on the first two of the three trucks.

It wasn't streamlined (not even a little), but it was definitely articulated and had the articulated truck powered. It finally had a 12-567, so it was probably good for about 1000HP or so.

Peter

[daveklepper]

It is in the Winter 2004 issue of CLASSIC TRAINS, and you are right, the first and second trucks are powered. However, note that both on this early example, and the later fleet of articulated BMT subway cars, if not the D Tyoes, then certainly the Multis, the Budd "Zephyr", the St. Louis Bluebird, and the Pullman aluminum Green Hornet, many articulation joints had trucks with motors underneath. Also the North Shore's Electroliner. But there was essentially just zero difference between the trucks under the articulation joints and the trucks under the rigid car body bolsters. What was different was that each of the facing units had ring, on above the other, that fitted the fat steel lubricated pin that projected down to the centerhole of the truck bolster. If this kind of design could be made strong enough, there is no reason it could not be applied to freight locomotives and there should not be any loss of adhesion.

[Paul Milenkovic]

I have been telling people that the TGV has all axles motored. My source for this is

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~jbutler/

which has to be right because the fellow is in Europe and he has a photo of the TGV on the Web site?

I came across other sites that indicate that only the power car trucks are motored. Who is right?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

It is in the Winter 2004 issue of CLASSIC TRAINS, and you are right, the first and second trucks are powered. However, note that both on this early example, and the later fleet of articulated BMT subway cars, if not the D Tyoes, then certainly the Multis, the Budd "Zephyr", the St. Louis Bluebird, and the Pullman aluminum Green Hornet, many articulation joints had trucks with motors underneath. Also the North Shore's Electroliner. But there was essentially just zero difference between the trucks under the articulation joints and the trucks under the rigid car body bolsters. What was different was that each of the facing units had ring, on above the other, that fitted the fat steel lubricated pin that projected down to the centerhole of the truck bolster. If this kind of design could be made strong enough, there is no reason it could not be applied to freight locomotives and there should not be any loss of adhesion.

It is probably a moot point since the whole "bigger is better" diesel craze has become passe, but I had wondered why someone hadn't tried to creat a two engined articulated locomotive rather than the twin engined rigid framed behemoths we ended up with.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
It is probably a moot point since the whole "bigger is better" diesel craze has become passe, but I had wondered why someone hadn't tried to creat a two engined articulated locomotive rather than the twin engined rigid framed behemoths we ended up with.

That is exactly what Baldwin created with the Centipede. The FTs as EMC envisioned them were articulated locomotives since there was no easy way to disconnect the A from the B as they were produced from the factory.

[M636C]

The Santa Fe railcar was M-190, I think.

Checking UP data, I find there was one more "M10004" type unit than I specified, so four two-units initially and three three unit sets later.

M10000, the City of Salina, had one power truck

M10001, the City of Portland, had two power trucks, one articulated with the baggage car.

M10002 was the first two unit streamliner loco, and had span bolster articulation like the M10004 units (but its second unit was only 900HP)

And now a slightly off topic question. While checking all this, (in Kratville's "Streamliners" I found a plan of car 12200, the baggage car articulated to M10001 showing it rebuilt with is own lead truck and HEP generators in the leading end (dated 1938).

The Kratville "Streamliners" book says the cars were scrapped when M10001 was rebuilt (using a new carbody) to become the third M10004 style separate booster.

Does anybody know if the cars were used with a separate locomotive after 1938?

Peter

[martin.knoepfel]

I agree with M636C as far as the French TGV's is concerned.

The new German ICE Class III has motors on several trucks, but I don't know, whether it is articulated. It can tilt actively, which is the reason the ICE III has light axle-loads. Thus the necessity to distribute motors to several trucks. Not all axles are powered, BTW. The Swiss tilt-trains have motors distributed to different trucks, too, although they are not articulated.

the Italien State Railways (FS, now Trenitalia) has hundreds of articulated electric engines (B'B'B') with either passenger or freigth-train-gearing. the Swiss Federal Railways has a class of B'B'B'-electric engines, two prototypes were articulated, the rest is not.

[daveklepper]

Cleveland Railways, later Cleveland Transit System, had three-truck, six-axle, six-motor strretcars, with the articulation joint over the middle (powered) truck. These provided service on Euclid Avenue, and I think were nubmered 5000-5027/ They were steel, could really handle crowds, and you boarded the car, could sit or stand in front before paying, paid as you past to the second door, and then could leave via the second or third doors. The interurban system centered in Milwaukee, not the North Shore, the system owned with the streetcars by the power company, had large heavy articulated interurvan cars, and so did the Washington, Baltimore and Annapolis. The articulated streetcars in Toronto have six motored axles.